What ? "You know , i know " ?

So , you do not have any proof and you do not even care if you do not have proof , <you know , i know> is sufficient for you ....you insist on clinching proof only when it is about your buddy <George wallace>/<big pawn> who , btw, demands that he must be allowed to create toxic ecology ....

Interesting.

And even then admins tried their best to de-escalate , they never wanted to ban him , as i see it , admins were very , very reasonable and patient , but <George wallace>/<big pawn> kept on pushing/escalating - his <revenge post> that <willber g> quoted after his buddies asked (most of us including admins knew about that post already), his hurling insults at admins continually, undermining admins and so on ...

So , finally , when admins banned him , there are some people who demanding answers from admins and calling ban unfair ....unbelievable !

That is hardly proof that Pawn had hacked the site. That post is just another instance of him shooting off his big fat mouth. Chessgames will have to do better than that to substantiate such a serious allegation as hacking the site.

<MissScarlett: <Different IP addresses every time (down to the Class C IP), different locations, different emails - very easy.> An army of socks does not equate, in my mind, at least, with hacking/attacking the servers - which is how <steve> characterised the problem. <Miss Susan>, you can't just move on without further explanation.>

Exactly!

Well said, Scazz.

<stone free or die: <opt> your post has some questions which might be better handled over on <Rogoff>, as we'd have to get into the weeds (or kudzu, as the case may be). But one clear example of "corrosive behavior", which I believe you have familiarity - is <Big Pawn>'s clear trollish and flagrant masquerading as elite liberal poster <George Wallace>. This was clearly a juvenile abuse of a (true) sock account, purely for corrosive purposes.>

I have not visited that filthy Rogoff page for over two years now and I'm not about to set foot back into that vile disgusting swamp, so my questions will have to be answered here.

Pawn's juvenile masquerading of <George Wallace> was ridiculous and embarrassing to himself, and my interactions with that username emphasised that to him. But that could hardly be classified as <corrosive behavior>.

The second time you caught on (and played along), but the first time though you fell for it.

<7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.>

2) a poster in this forum said that ban on <AJ goldsby> should not be revoked because he is toxic.

"Exactly my thoughts " , <ocf> said

3) so , why the same reason is not sufficient for <ocf> and other buddies of <George wallace>/<big pawn> when <big pawn> himself demands/insists on continuing to make the ecology toxic as he has done for last ten years as he himself claims (whereas <AJ goldsby> does not want to be toxic and he and others claim that if guidelines on other posters are enforced then <AJ goldsby> would be calm and civil )

<Gw>/<bp> has been hurling racist insults and other insults including insulting mothers , wives of other posters and much worse since forever and he claims like it is just a <food fight> kind of sport which others including <saffuna> like as much as he does.

<Saffuna>, <chancho> and others told very clearly that he is deluded , nobody likes his insults , some like <saffuna> endure stoically , some pay him back ...i had to shut down insults of his and his two buddies by doing <Samuel jackson> to them.

4) so , why his toxicity and persistent defiance/aggression to admins is not sufficient reason for banning him , why must admins also show the proof that he hacked the server ?

5) downplaying his toxicity as if it is just his childishness/immaturity which should be indulged/ignored is ridiculous especially when he continually calls admins kids who should not interfere with the affairs of 'mature people like him'

6) so , once again - it is time to move on , guys , instead of defending indefensible.

Admins are removing toxicity from the site , they have worked hard for that , let us not undermine their efforts.

Let us move on , guys.

7) if <George wallace>/<big pawn> wants the ban to be revoked , he should email admins and communicate in an atomosphere of mutual respect and resolve the issues to the satisfaction of admins

That is that

<KS> is addressing me, and making a serious, but completely unfounded, charge against me.

He's now done it several times, with no foundation whatsoever - it's pure slander, and outrageously wrong.

I would like the <CG> staff to delete these repeated unqualified false claims and enfore rule #3:

<No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.>

I'm not familiar with any of that. Can you provide links to a few examples?

<stone free or die: <<opie> You'll have to do better than that, Zanzy.> The second time you caught on (and played along), but the first time though you fell for it.>

Rubbish! It was obvious straight away. I played along from the start to highlight his foolishness.

<I suppose corrosion is in the eye of the eroder.>

Well, you can't accuse someone of corrosive behaviour just because he is always shooting off his big fat mouth about things you don't like.

<I would define the constant taunting and flaunting of <CG> standards corrosive: <7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.> Note the "false impression" and "stage conversations" part.>

So are we arguing that Pawn was banned because of sock puppets or because he hacked the site?

We know what after that - he would forever humiliate/ridicule <Steve> and <Peter> in the company of his buddies gloating like <"we won once again ....Steve and Peter were manipulating <Susan freeman> but we helped <Susan freeman> to do the right thing ...Steve and Peter were abusing their powers ....> And so on.....

We all know that is what would happen if the ban is revoked - we have seen this soap opera many times in the past

If repeat of this drama is undesirable/unacceptable , then <George wallace>/<big pawn> ban should be revoked only if he communicates to admins through email in an atomosphere of mutual respect and resolves the issues to the satisfaction of admins ....

That's not how I remember it. But this has degraded to <Rogoffian> level now... you really just want to excuse his behavior. That's fine for you, but not for me.

And not for the <CG> community apparently, thank goodness.

I merely pointed out that it wasn't so surprising that someone with such a corrosive attitude towards <CG> would stoop to hacking the hand that fed him.

Yes , that is where this conversation was headed righ from the very beginning and i , <Susan freeman> (and presumably many others) could easily foresee

And apparently , <Susan freeman> asked people , in a subtle manner , to not do this , however , ....

Hopefully , this conversation has run its course now .....

<OhioMissScarlettFan>

I agree with your sentiment here:

Then your memory on this matter is faulty.

<But this has degraded to <Rogoffian> level now... you really just want to excuse his behavior. That's fine for you, but not for me. And not for the <CG> community apparently, thank goodness.>

At no stage have I excused his behaviour.

All that myself and others have respectfully requested is that Chessgames provide appropriate details of the reason for Pawn's latest banishment.

<And to spell it out - it's not for his corrosive posting that he was banished. It was for hacking <CG>.>

What is the evidence?

<I merely pointed out that it wasn't so surprising that someone with such a corrosive attitude towards <CG> would stoop to hacking the hand that fed him.>

But you haven't pointed out any corrosive attitude by him nor is there evidence that he hacked the site.

Lol.

Life is good
Life is fair.>

That is what <Susan freeman> (and Steve) said.

However <op> and a couple others are 'pressurising' to disclose , nonetheless , whereas some others are asking not to 'pressurise'

Apparently , silence of <Susan freeman> is eloquent response - she is like <there is nothing more to be said on this subject>

So , now what ? Some more pressurising and then more push back to pressurising from others ? Is it not time to move on yet ? I think so - it is time to move on.

If they have the evidence and don't want to disclose their methods, why doubt their sincerity?